- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5162 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, II FLOOR, DARE HOUSE, N.S.C.BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI, HAVING OFFICES AT DIFFERENT PLACES INTERALIA AT UNIT NO.04, 9TH FLOOR, GOLDEN HEIGHTS COMPLEX, 59TH 'C' CROSS, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, 4TH 'M' BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010 BY ITS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (CLAIMS) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.S. LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANNAIAH NOW AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRINIVASA BHOVI, R/O DODDAKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KEMPAPURA POST, KYSAMBALLI HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK-563 114. 2. R.SOMAPPA MAJOR, S/O RAMAPPA, R/O UKKARAHALLI VILLAGE, KETHAGANAHALLI POST, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:05.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.229/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, K.G.F., AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.70,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer -respondent No.1 against the judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 passed by the Fast Track Judge at K.G.F in MVC.No.229/2012. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 24.04.2012 around 7.30 p.m, claimant was going along with one Babu on a motor cycle from Doddakallahalli to Kuppam, at that time, one luggage auto bearing registration No.KA-08-4938 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bike - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 of the petitioner. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to P.E.S. Medical college, Kuppam, wherein he was treated for more than one month as inpatient and thereafter, he was shifted to Victoria hospital, wherein he took further treatment. 4. It is further the case of the claimant that he was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident. He was a mason and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and he was looking after his family. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered from permanent disability and is unable to do any work. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 5. Respondent No.1 is the insurer, respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending autorickshaw. Both the respondents filed written statement contending that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and that the driver of the autorikshaw was not at all responsible for the accident. They also denied other averments stated in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and 2 and marked 17 documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked 6 documents as Ex.R1 to R6. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization and the same is challenged by the insurer in the present appeal. 8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the name of the petitioner in the claim petition is different from the medical records. In the medical records, the name of the injured is mentioned as Nannaiah Goudu but the name of the claimant is Annaiah. In the cross-examination, he admits that he is called Annaiah and not by any other name, which clearly indicates that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 victim is not the present petitioner, just to claim compensation, he has misused the name of the petitioner. herefore, claim petition is not maintainable. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that Ex.R6 i.e. driving license extract indicates that claimant had been authorized to drive the two wheeler and four wheeler also, he had the license to drive the three wheeler (non-transport). The vehicle in question is a goods auto. Therefore, the license was not valid to drive such a class of vehicle. The respondent - insurer is not liable to pay the compensation or indemnify the owner of the vehicle. These facts were not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1 - insurer. 11. The following point is raised for my determination: i. Whether the contention of the appellant - insurer regarding the identity of the name of the claimant has been established? ii. Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on respondent No.1 to pay the compensation despite the rider of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 autorikshaw did not had possess a valid and effective driving license? iii. What order? 12. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to evidence of PW1 and 2 along with medical records. There is slight discrepancy in the name of the claimant in the claim petition as well as in the medical evidence. Other records including FIR reveal that name of the pillion rider Annaiah S/o Srinivasa Bhovi. In Ex.P4 i.e. wound certificate, his name is mentioned as Nannaiah Goudu and in some of the medical receipts, name is mentioned as Nannaiah Goudu. Ex.P15 also shows his name as Annaiah. In the cross- examination of PW1 and 2 nothing was brought out to disbelieve that the victim of the accident is different from claimant herein. It may be true that there is some mistake while entering the name of the claimant and that may be a mistake of concerned hospital authority and on that ground the claim petition cannot be rejected. Even in Ex.P14- discharge summary, the name of the claimant is properly mentioned as Annaiya. In view of other materials placed on record shows that claimant himself was the victim of the said - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 accident. Similarly, the mistake in Ex.P4 is not significant enough to cast doubt on the identity of the claimant. The Tribunal discussed the evidence in detail and came to a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the 'Negative'. 13. The records produced by the claimant as well as insurer reveals that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the three wheeler by its driver. Driving license of the said driver is produced at Ex.P6, which shows that he had the license to drive the motor cycle with gear from 16.03.2012 and LMV-NT (Light Motor Vehicle - Non Transport) from 16.03.2012 and he had also license to drive LMV - three wheeler from 16.03.2012. The accident had taken place on 25.12.2012. It is true that the offended vehicle is goods auto and it is a commercial vehicle but he was not holding license to drive the transport vehicle. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co., - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 Ltd. and others.1, the driver who is authorized to drive the non-transport vehicle can drive the transport vehicle without placing endorsement from the concerned authority to drive transport vehicle. The above law laid down in Mukund Dewangan's case is approved by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance vs Rambha Devi2. Hence, the appellant - insurer cannot take such defence to disown its liability to pay compensation. Hence, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The said finding cannot call for interference by this Court. 14. From the above said discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 passed by Fast Track Judge at K.G.F., in MVC.No.229/2012 is confirmed 1 (2016) 4 scc 298 2 (2019) 12 SCC 816 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19701 MFA No. 5162 of 2014 iii. Amount in deposit by the appellant-insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants on due identification. iv. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25